It is the best way to lose sight of the actual disagreement in the first place: Was Slick wrong in saying that? And I still say "no."

That's because you, and many others who are so recently joined here, are a group of fucking morons who only see the inside of a colon when they open their eyes.

And thank you for proving my point. If you push your beliefs on someone, the crowd will eventually hunt you down because your views are different. So, Monique wants acceptance so she keeps dealing with the dissenting masses. However, I already know from what I read from these fellows before (and I am never sure if they are genuine or just trying to be ironic and funny) that their opinions won't be swayed just like Monique's hecklers. Now, seeing that the argument is about to become nothing but personal attacks, allow me to demonstrate what Monique SHOULD do if she doesn't want the grief.

It is the best way to lose sight of the actual disagreement in the first place: Was Slick wrong in saying that? And I still say "no."

That's because you, and many others who are so recently joined here, are a group of fucking morons who only see the inside of a colon when they open their eyes.

And thank you for proving my point. If you push your beliefs on someone, the crowd will eventually hunt you down because your views are different. So, Monique wants acceptance so she keeps dealing with the dissenting masses. However, I already know from what I read from these fellows before (and I am never sure if they are genuine or just trying to be ironic and funny) that their opinions won't be swayed just like Monique's hecklers. Now, seeing that the argument is about to become nothing but personal attacks, allow me to demonstrate what Monique SHOULD do if she doesn't want the grief.

*Tips hat off to everyone and leaves*

Do try to stay gone and don't just flounce the forum only to come back weeks or months later._________________

It is the best way to lose sight of the actual disagreement in the first place: Was Slick wrong in saying that? And I still say "no."

That's because you, and many others who are so recently joined here, are a group of fucking morons who only see the inside of a colon when they open their eyes.

And thank you for proving my point. If you push your beliefs on someone, the crowd will eventually hunt you down because your views are different. So, Monique wants acceptance so she keeps dealing with the dissenting masses. However, I already know from what I read from these fellows before (and I am never sure if they are genuine or just trying to be ironic and funny) that their opinions won't be swayed just like Monique's hecklers. Now, seeing that the argument is about to become nothing but personal attacks, allow me to demonstrate what Monique SHOULD do if she doesn't want the grief.

*Tips hat off to everyone and leaves*

Do try to stay gone and don't just flounce the forum only to come back weeks or months later.

Um, I think he meant he was done with this topic, that he made his point and left before the personal attacks would start, which it did right after he said he made his point. If you think anyone's leaving for good your a fool. Were like Monique, going to go back to the same place even though we know we can't get through to them._________________The Angry Asshat.

But we seem to be moving away from the topic, that being what was it that Slick did wrong. And my answer is nothing. He is right. Monique should have known that the crowd would have reacted that way. If you are a salesman trying to deal with an unresponsive crowd, you go somewhere else. I have already pointed out that Monique is playing to the same crowd, meaning she is trying to force them to accept her.

Do you go up and try to talk sense into a WBC member and try to get them to agree to a heterosexual lifestyle? Of course not, because you know the amount of resistance that would entail. In fact, it would become a war of insults and name calling. Monique knew that, Slick knew that, and he called her on it.

1. slick was wrong. granted, he was trying to be helpful - but he was victim-blaming. let me quote him exactly: "you talked about feminism again, didn't you?...shouldn't rile 'em up like that."

in other words, she should have just kept quiet. replace feminism with any of the things i mentioned: civil rights, using condoms, espousing christianity...would you really have agreed that monique should have just kept her mouth shut, so she wouldn't 'rile' people? or would she have been within her rights to try to change things? how does societal change come about, if people don't run the risk of 'riling' other people?

2. salesmen are a completely different story. salesmen exist by maximizing sales per unit time. if it is clear that you aren't going to make a sale, you move on to another potential customer; you don't waste time on the one you aren't going to sell.

3. there are, in fact, some differences in what monique is doing, and what the WBC and missionaries in general do. she is not accosting people, or protesting funerals, or anything like that. she is in a club. people can choose whether or not they want to patronize that club. management is presumably ok with what she is doing, or they wouldn't let her have mic time. admittedly, we can't see the audience, but i suspect they are not chained to their seats, so they can leave any time they want.

it is, as dogen mentioned, pretty much like the situation with daniel tosh: if you know you won't like his brand of humor, don't go to one of his shows. and the audience _did_ know what they were going to get. because they had tomatoes. so unless there's an in-coffeehouse produce stand....they knew what they expected. they put themselves in a position where they knew they were going to be offended.

sorta like i would be, if i actually tried to talk to a WBC member._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

But we seem to be moving away from the topic, that being what was it that Slick did wrong. And my answer is nothing. He is right. Monique should have known that the crowd would have reacted that way. If you are a salesman trying to deal with an unresponsive crowd, you go somewhere else. I have already pointed out that Monique is playing to the same crowd, meaning she is trying to force them to accept her.

Do you go up and try to talk sense into a WBC member and try to get them to agree to a heterosexual lifestyle? Of course not, because you know the amount of resistance that would entail. In fact, it would become a war of insults and name calling. Monique knew that, Slick knew that, and he called her on it.

1. slick was wrong. granted, he was trying to be helpful - but he was victim-blaming. let me quote him exactly: "you talked about feminism again, didn't you?...shouldn't rile 'em up like that."

in other words, she should have just kept quiet. replace feminism with any of the things i mentioned: civil rights, using condoms, espousing christianity...would you really have agreed that monique should have just kept her mouth shut, so she wouldn't 'rile' people? or would she have been within her rights to try to change things? how does societal change come about, if people don't run the risk of 'riling' other people?

2. salesmen are a completely different story. salesmen exist by maximizing sales per unit time. if it is clear that you aren't going to make a sale, you move on to another potential customer; you don't waste time on the one you aren't going to sell.

3. there are, in fact, some differences in what monique is doing, and what the WBC and missionaries in general do. she is not accosting people, or protesting funerals, or anything like that. she is in a club. people can choose whether or not they want to patronize that club. management is presumably ok with what she is doing, or they wouldn't let her have mic time. admittedly, we can't see the audience, but i suspect they are not chained to their seats, so they can leave any time they want.

it is, as dogen mentioned, pretty much like the situation with daniel tosh: if you know you won't like his brand of humor, don't go to one of his shows. and the audience _did_ know what they were going to get. because they had tomatoes. so unless there's an in-coffeehouse produce stand....they knew what they expected. they put themselves in a position where they knew they were going to be offended.

sorta like i would be, if i actually tried to talk to a WBC member.

1. But did Martin Luther go and talk to people that actively hated him, he did marches at Washington, dealing with protesters who hated him and his movement, but he was going to talk to people that WOULD listen. From what it seems like the Coffee shop is a dude-bro only hangout, no one there is being changed, and no one is listening to her message. There is trying to get a man to change his nature, but there are people that are not willing to change no matter what they are told. I'm not saying to give up mind you, I'm saying to change venues, go to the park and do it, somewhere where their are dudebro's AND normal people.'

2. Management is probably okay with whats going on because it brings in more dudebros, I mean she's brodcasting where she will be, so all the haters can come in watch the show for free, throw stuff at her, and then leave, and the bar gets all the drinks, food, snacks, everything. Revenue > Tomato stains.

3. True, but now your saying that the dudebros have to do what some people are suggesting monique do. "You don't have to be there, just walk away" If its wrong to force monique to do that, why is it okay for the audience? She knew she was going into a place where tomatos were being thrown at her and be unresponsive to her message, and she put herself in the position to become the victim. I don't find that saying monique was being dumb for being there as blaming the victim, just the same as I don't think the people throwing the tomatoes could ever really be considered a victim. Yet we are saying the same things to two different groups, but the only difference is saying it to a feminist is blaming the victim, while saying it to the dudebro's is common sense._________________The Angry Asshat.

1. But did Martin Luther go and talk to people that actively hated him, he did marches at Washington, dealing with protesters who hated him and his movement, but he was going to talk to people that WOULD listen. From what it seems like the Coffee shop is a dude-bro only hangout, no one there is being changed, and no one is listening to her message. There is trying to get a man to change his nature, but there are people that are not willing to change no matter what they are told. I'm not saying to give up mind you, I'm saying to change venues, go to the park and do it, somewhere where their are dudebro's AND normal people.'

how do you know there is no one there hearing her message? we haven't even seen the entire audience - we just know that at least one of them is throwing tomatoes, that one threatened to leave forever, and there was some booing. for all we know, all the negative reactions are coming from one dude. and the rest of the audience is sitting there, watching what is going on, and thinking "..she may have a point, there." we haven't, for example, seen any conversations between audience members as they leave the venue. we don't even know how big the audience is.

Rothide wrote:

3. True, but now your saying that the dudebros have to do what some people are suggesting monique do. "You don't have to be there, just walk away" If its wrong to force monique to do that, why is it okay for the audience? She knew she was going into a place where tomatos were being thrown at her and be unresponsive to her message, and she put herself in the position to become the victim. Alright that may be victim blaming, but did anyone blame the lion for the person in the news a while back who jumped into its pit at the zoo?

people have a right to voice their opinions. if you don't want to hear said opinions, change the channel. walk away. don't go to that club.

not liking the message and then choosing to return to the place you heard it, tomatoes in hand, is a whole other thing. that's not 'being riled', that's overtly opposing the message. that the whites who showed up at the freedom marches with fenceposts and beat the marchers. (by the way, that was martin luther _king_. martin luther was a german guy, who had his own issues to protest. i don't think he actually got beaten or arrested or even subject to tomato attack, just excommunicated.)

no. and in this instance, monique is the lion. and you can hardly label someone who _chooses_ to jump into a lion's den a victim._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

I can't shake the feeling that the tomato acted like a Brain Slug and pacified her until it was removed, at which point she suddenly regained her ability to passionately retort.

I was wondering why she didn't just remove it before leaving the coffeehouse.
In fact, there shouldn't even BE tomatoes in this place, thanks to Minique.Except the comic just before that one calls it a "veggie detector," but that's neither here nore there._________________

mouse wrote:

almost a shame to waste dennis' talent on him.
except it's always a pleasure to see a good dennis insult.